Pollock v WA

[2009] WASCA 121

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Multiple offences
4. › Totality principle
5. › First limb — whether aggregate sentence bears proper relationship to overall criminality
6. › Whether 14 years' imprisonment inappropriately long for nine offences arising from home invasion
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Multiple offences
4. › Totality principle
5. › Second limb — crushing sentence
6. › Whether sentence destroys reasonable expectation of useful life after release
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Multiple offences
4. › One transaction rule
5. › Whether offences against two victims in course of home invasion constituted one transaction
6. › Whether sentencing judge obliged to make sentences concurrent

Quick Take

A total effective sentence of 14 years' imprisonment for nine offences arising from a premeditated, armed home invasion involving sexual assault, grievous bodily harm (severing of a finger), deprivation of liberty and stealing was within range and did not breach the totality principle. The one transaction rule does not apply where there are two separate victims and distinct offences against each, and even where it does apply, it is only a guideline that does not oblige a sentencing judge to impose concurrent sentences.